I don't think so. The article refers to formal verification, but also notes that proof checking should be done by humans. We don't have enough capable humans for that.

As a general rule, building things as an engineering project (according to engineering, whatever you want to call it) doesn't prove they work. Rather, it proves they don't fail in specific known/defined ways. There's always ways they can fail that aren't known/checked, and frequently ways that aren't considered important.

Kind of like automated tests in software development. Except the people that pay for the engineering stuff are more likely to pay for the extra tests, because of liability.

You’re twisting words here.

If a new jet completes extensive flight testing and has flown around the world but has undiscovered engineering flaws, “it’s working”.

Meeting verification and validation requirements in a sound engineering development program should certainly get you to “it’s working”, whether there are undiscovered engineering flaws or not.

Anything men build is subject to failure and unknown unknowns - so nothing works?

Engineering is the application of science and mathematics to solve problems and create solutions… that “application of science and mathematics” is what’s been missing from the majority these last 20 years.